2020 US Election (Part One)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sommerswerd said:
About the first thing... I was thinking it was the Greeks who do that:think: @Kyriakos ? Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
C'mon! Vizzini, the Man in Black…
Lexicus said:
Sommerswerd said:
About the second thing... hahaha I was thinking the same... in fact I think its clear that Civ 1 had exactly this in mind when they drew that "military advisory"... but I didn't want to say... cause I'm such a super-nice-guy ;)
Click to expand...

It's weird, doesn't look like a military man at all, it looks like a douchebag fat cop
Click to expand...
Brownshirt.
 
Takhisis said:
C'mon! Vizzini, the Man in Black…
Click to expand...
Ahhhhh... :blush: missed that one...
Kyriakos said:
Brown shirt?
Not sure what you mean by shirt, @Sommerswerd ; brown coats (leather) maybe, but shirts ussually are white. Perhaps half a century ago it would be different :)
Click to expand...
No I was talking about poison... this specifically:
Connery-e1372724962953-490x372.jpg


but Tak clarified what was meant so fuhgetabouddit.;)
 
Lexicus said:
It's weird, doesn't look like a military man at all, it looks like a douchebag fat cop
Click to expand...
Sommerswerd said:
I think the unsubtle message they were going for was "Police State" where the military and police are the same thing. He's the "Domestic Advisor" in Despotism.
Click to expand...

He is also the domestic advisor in Anarchy, so there goes that theory. Lexicus got it right.

To me, he looks like a typical cartel minion you have to deal with in any left-wing hellhole south of the US. He is so cute!


onejayhawk said:
I don't see anyone I really like, but that is not unusual. My viewpoint is unconventional. I like Bernie but think he's a hopeless dreamer. I think Warren shot her foot completely off. The Democratic party is in the midst of a generational transition, not unlike the Republicans of a decade ago. At the moment it looks like the old guard has one last hurrah, which is as doomed as the candidate in the book of that name. Of the young guard, I only know Beto O'Roark and consider him a vapid twit.

On the other side, there is only Trump if he runs and Cruz if he doesn't. Choose your poison.

J
Click to expand...

Beto made some remarks about the constitution this week,
"Does this still work? Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships . . . and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?"

His point about the military being over-extended is inarguable, but it does not have a clear bearing on the founding principles. It sounds like he has vague misgivings about the relevancy of the constitution but has not actually given the topic much thought. He seems about as suitable to execute the "protect and defend the constitution" part of the office as Oprah Winfrey is to run the military.

I like the neoclassical ideas and methods of the constitution. If the country had been founded on principles devised less than 230 years ago, like in the Romantic period or, god forbid, the 20th century, we'd be SOL.
 
I doubt the 1st Amendment could be ratified today, which is ironic given the bigotry and racism back then. I have mixed feelings about the Constitution. I think people who get elected and take the oath shouldn't exceed the powers provided by it, but on the other hand I cant argue with people like Lysander Spooner who said he has no obligation to the Constitution, he didn't sign it.
 
Tristan_C said:
I like the neoclassical ideas and methods of the constitution. If the country had been founded on principles devised less than 230 years ago, like in the Romantic period or, god forbid, the 20th century, we'd be SOL.
Click to expand...
What's supposed to be Classical about the US Constitution? It's just the constitution of Hanoverian Britain, codified.

They don't even bother to apply consistently Classical names, else Congress would be called the Assembly, the Speaker would be called the Tribune, and the President would be called the Consul.
 
.
Traitorfish said:
What's supposed to be Classical about the US Constitution?
Click to expand...

You are probably aware the period in which it was written is called the Age of Reason or the Enlightenment; one of the products of this era was a new prescription for the relation between the individual and the state, based on equality rather than nobility, or social contracts rather than divine right. The American colonials combined the Brits' theories with extensive hands-on experience in representative government. That's about as condensed as I can make it for you. It's not about using Roman words.

The neoclassical seems to me to be a sweet spot, where before this time we had monarchies, and there was no concept there of legal equality, and afterwards you had extremes of individuals and their desires being held sacred (the romantic) or, with religion out of the picture, human beings becoming literal fuel for the state to digest, deus ex fascis (the modern). The world regressed into the high-tech monarchies of today that are focused either on warfare or transgender bathrooms, and prudence, an artifact of the age of reason, is wayyyy out of style. So you get people voting for Beto.
 
:huh: How did that last sentence get there?
 
Tristan_C said:
The neoclassical seems to me to be a sweet spot, where before this time we had monarchies, and there was no concept there of legal equality,
Click to expand...
Not really.
Magna Carta said:
+ (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.
Click to expand...
https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation

Plus, given it took the United States another century to decide whether black people or women were, well, people, I wouldn't stroke the "legal equality" concept too much.
(EDIT: And let's be honest. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act that America even managed basic legal equality for all citizens.)
 
Last edited:
A crude form of legal equality in the form of military communism is likely far older than writing
 
There's a new Marist poll that shows that 57% of voters will "definitely vote against Trump" in 2020!

Of course, there's a lot of time between now and then, but then again, nothing Trump is going to do between now and Nov 2020 is going to change that much.
 
I think today's news, confirms that Trump won't be on the ticket in 2020. He may not be in jail, but he won't be running. So who's up for the republicans? Romney? Pence?

Maybe Mueller can tag Pence in what is come. Yummy!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gori the Grey
  • Locked
2024 US Presidential Election Watch Party
34 35 36
Replies
705
Views
27K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
amadeus
  • Locked
U.S. Presidential Election 2024 Part II: 象対ロバ
102 103 104
Replies
2K
Views
78K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Zardnaar
Progressives How Many?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
4K
JollyRoger
JollyRoger
Gori the Grey
  • Locked
The 2024 US Presidential Election
49 50 51
Replies
1K
Views
54K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
GoodEnoughForMe
Should the US Invade Greenland (Denmark) & Panama
24 25 26
Replies
515
Views
22K
Crezth
Crezth
Back
Top Bottom